Fiona Rose Diamond

Forwarded from Mike Yeadon

The position is this. We do not know.
The perpetrators have told us what we’re supposed to believe is in them.
We know at very least that this description is incorrect in at least some ways.
We know this because a limited number of vials were smuggled out of vaccination centres and limited analyses are alleged to have been conducted. I say alleged, because it’s important to stand back from all claims, because we’re relying on faith that analyses have been done as described (I think they probably have been done, but it’s s claim, it’s not verifiable).
These tests have not found full length mRNA as stated in the fake regulatory documents.
Others claim to have found extraordinary amounts of circular (bacterial) DNA, contrary to regulatory upper limits.
Others claim to have found moving things. Yet others that there are what look like self assembling nano machines. Further groups claim to have found graphene & derivatives.
Quite additionally to all that, different batch / lot numbers of what is nominally the same product have allegedly revealed quite different results.
In other words, thst wouid be utterly inconsistent with the idea that these are even manufactured consistent from time to time.
Anyone making overly dogmatic claims about what’s in “the vaccines” based on a truly tiny number of samples is to my mind suspect.
I actually have some formal experience of analysis of unknown substances.
It’s remarkably difficult, if you don’t start with a detailed description of what’s meant to be in the sample, to work out what you have.
We have to acknowledge that most samples analysed are unrepresentative of what the great mass of people have been injected with, in that they typically were outside of cold storage for some time before any analysis started.
Any components that degrade when allowed to warm up will give distorted results.
The empirical evidence indicates that batch to batch variations in reported adverse events (eg VAERS) is spectacularly large, and this alone tells us that it’s not the same material in each vial.
There have been billions of vials. The number allegedly investigated by competent analysts is so small that I don’t think we can make inferences about “What’s in the vials, what have people been injected with?”
Back to the technical aspects of analysing unknown substances.
There’s no Star Trek style Tricorder that can be waved at the sample to yield results.
Instead, a range of different analytical techniques are necessary & there’s no set of techniques that are guaranteed to yield “the answers”.
Some techniques can sometimes yield a result definitively. Mass spectrometers (which I’ve used, albeit in 1983!) can tell us that certain substances are present. But if the substance in question is impure, or is large, or is a novel substance, analysis will be thwarted.
Over the last few years, I’ve realised that even sequencing methods don’t necessarily give us the kind of information that I used to accept without any question.
Most of the light microscopy appears to have been done by people who aren’t experts in the technique. I am not an expert in it either, but I was taught what little I remember by someone who was an expert.
He told me that one of the most important lessons is that apparently finding strange things in a sample is dissolved commonplace. This is so because all manner of artefacts occur really easily.
For example, if there is anything dissolved, the liquid will evaporate once a “smear” is applied to the microscope slide. Most substances, as they fall out of the evaporating solution, energetically prefer to form regular, repeating structures, otherwise know as salts, by which I do not mean table salt.
These structures can spontaneously assemble into larger structures and do actually move as they do so. Sound familiar?
I’m not saying that all such claims are explained in this way. I am saying that formal accounting for this well known & commonplace artefact is absent from the claims made by some groups.

❤14👍5👏2

2.2K viewsFiona CoviLeaks, 19:00